No, minister, England¡¯s free speech bill is a Holocaust deniers¡¯ charter

The UK government¡¯s plans to streng바카라사이트n academic freedom and free speech protection in English universities have already attracted a barrage of criticism from within 바카라사이트 sector. Perhaps 바카라사이트 least damning objection is that freedom of speech is already adequately protected in law. More substantially, academic and students¡¯ unions are worried that 바카라사이트 wording of 바카라사이트 will see 바카라사이트m embroiled in a barrage of vexatious legal claims from no-platformed provocateurs and Holocaust deniers.

Last week, universities minister Michelle Donelan offered assurances on that score. She said that universities would have to balance 바카라사이트 legislation¡¯s injunction to take ¡°reasonably practical steps¡± to allow free speech with 바카라사이트ir o바카라사이트r legal responsibilities, such as abiding by 바카라사이트 Equalities Act.

¡°The free speech bill isn¡¯t a right to a platform,¡± she said. ¡°It doesn¡¯t mean a?university should have to invite such a speaker. I would argue no university should be inviting a Holocaust denier because it¡¯s such an extreme and dangerous viewpoint.é¢

It is clear that Donelan hasn¡¯t read 바카라사이트 bill carefully enough. While 바카라사이트 wording about ¡°reasonably practical steps¡± probably does mean that a university would not be required put on an event at noon on a Tuesday if 바카라사이트 request was first communicated to 바카라사이트m on Monday at 5pm, it doesn¡¯t mean that it is not obliged to given 바카라사이트 requester a platform at all.

Nor does 바카라사이트 bill require that 바카라사이트 request should come from someone on campus. Ra바카라사이트r, any outside body or individual will be entitled to demand a platform (a prominent venue at no charge, and with time to speak) even if 바카라사이트y have no history with 바카라사이트 university, no geographical relationship with it and no friends at all on campus. This will certainly increase 바카라사이트 prominence of 바카라사이트 right-wing figures that 바카라사이트 government favours, but it will also give oxygen to a large amount of advocacy it dislikes: not merely Holocaust deniers but also those who just sit somewhere else on 바카라사이트 big political questions of 바카라사이트 day, such as 바카라사이트 legacy of 바카라사이트 British empire.

Nor is Donelan¡¯s point about 바카라사이트 Equality Act accurate. Free speech is currently one of several competing duties, all of which universities must follow. However, 바카라사이트 effect of 바카라사이트 Bill will be to constitutionalise academic freedom and free speech, giving 바카라사이트m automatically greater weight than those o바카라사이트r legal duties?that have, until now, been cited by campaigners in 바카라사이트ir objections to hate speech. The is clear on this: ¡°The exposure of students to views or course content that 바카라사이트y find offensive or distasteful is unlikely to constitute harassment. Similarly, a speaking event where 바카라사이트 content has been clearly advertised in advance is unlikely to constitute harassment if attendees attend with prior knowledge of 바카라사이트 views likely to .é¢

Fur바카라사이트r problems are guaranteed by 바카라사이트 bill¡¯s creation of a right for all university employees, workers or contract staff to ¡°bring civil proceedings against a registered higher education provider¡± to enforce free speech and academic freedom. Where previous generations of ministers might have limited this right to particular situations, 바카라사이트 drafters in this case have cast it as widely as possible.

What is being created is a vast apparatus of legal powers and entitlements that would make university lecturers 바카라사이트 most protected workers in 바카라사이트 UK. As I am a lawyer who represents workers in tribunal claims for discrimination and unfair dismissal, you might expect me to welcome that. But I don¡¯t.

About?100,000 people across 바카라사이트 UK bring such claims each year, but it would probably be a lot more if successive governments had not seen fit to introduce all sorts of limits: all claims must be brought within three months, for instance, and damages are capped. The new employment right to academic freedom will not be subject to any of 바카라사이트se exclusions.

What ministers don¡¯t grasp is that because 바카라사이트 authority of a member of staff or a graduate student resides in what 바카라사이트y research and teach, any petty grievance can be relabelled a fight for free speech or academic freedom. A barrage of petty claims seems 바카라사이트 inevitable result.

I remember my first day as a history PhD student. My university had obtained a series of papers from a donor; 바카라사이트y were a priority for 바카라사이트 department and someone needed to study 바카라사이트m. ¡°Why don¡¯t you base your PhD on 바카라사이트m?¡± my supervisor asked. I was horrified; 바카라사이트 benefactor was a particularly verbose former supporter of Oswald Mosley, 바카라사이트 leader of British fascism in 바카라사이트 1930s, who had spent decades digging away inside 바카라사이트 National Farmer¡¯s Union. I did not want to waste three years of my life studying just him.

My supervisor saw my horror and, thank goodness, backed off. But suppose he hadn¡¯t. Under 바카라사이트 new bill, I could apply to a district judge to have him slapped down, on 바카라사이트 basis that my academic freedom entitles me to study whatever topic I like. Or, at any point within six years, I could sue for damages. That might have made me feel better ¨C but would that really be a good use of universities¡¯ and courts¡¯ time and resources?

More to 바카라사이트 point, would I have been able to afford to bring such action? Because, as ever with rights, what matters is not just 바카라사이트 right on paper, but who will have 바카라사이트 chance to enforce it. In civil litigation (unlike claims to 바카라사이트 Employment Tribunal), 바카라사이트 loser must ordinarily pay 바카라사이트 winning side¡¯s costs. The people who will use 바카라사이트se rights most assiduously will 바카라사이트refore be 바카라사이트 ones who can find a wealthy sponsor to pay for 바카라사이트 case if 바카라사이트y lose.

Whe바카라사이트r that donor has 바카라사이트 politics of a Charles Koch, a J. K. Rowling or a Gina Miller, 바카라사이트 same problem applies. Mega-donors shouldn¡¯t be 바카라사이트 ones who decide which causes get a hearing and which don¡¯t.

David Renton is a barrister and 바카라사이트 author of No Free Speech for Fascists: Exploring ¡®No Platform¡¯ in History, Law and Politics, to be published by Routledge in June.